I don hate it, I like the fact the Kyptron island is used, always seemed dumb, but this is a nice use for it, however I do wonder (I know this has already been said) what effect this might have on Supermans powers.

That said its possible for it to have gotten far enough away from Earth, not to effect Superman, but be close enough for Brainiac to track it back to earth, ploting its course using gravity patterns and how the planets orbit the sun etc etc

As for the kid becoming adult, um im in two minds, one of one part his body may not be of much use to Brainiac, still a child, also they could never show Superman beating up on a child, but on the other, it is kinda strange.

The problem with Superman Returns is that Richard White completely steals the hero limelight. I liked the character, and Marsden did a great job bringing him to life, but come on, this is a film about Superman for god's sake. You should know something's wrong when you've done a better job of making a supporting character look heroic, than you did with the actual superhero the film is about.

Kryponite doesn't work if Superman isn't in direct contact with it. Unless Clark was hovering in space right next to the island he would not feel it's effects...and it would be a prolonged thing since 'New Krypton' is only partially filled with it. "Superman Returns" showed that he can endure quite a bit of exposure before he finally succumbed to it.

I have no problem taking a similar 'pick and choose' approach with Superman. Indeed, I find it hard to understand how those who read comics, with their ever changing continuity and backstory, can't approach movies with the same attitude.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I wanted -- something that was set in a different continuity from what's come before, like The Man of Steel or Birthright or All-Star Superman.

Bryan Singer did a great job creating an original, distinctive take on the X-Men. So I wanted to see Bryan Singer's Superman, not Bryan Singer's fanboy love letter to Richard Donner's Superman. If I'd wanted another film in the Donner continuity, Singer's not the one I would've wanted to make it, since his style is a total mismatch. His take was too solemn and subdued, so it didn't feel like a valid continuation of Donner's more lively approach. It just felt like an inadequate imitation.

Also, SR loses points automatically for its portrayal of Lex. As much as I enjoy the Donner films, and what Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey did with what they were given, Lex Luthor is not Hedley Lamarr.

Yeah that was one of my personal greatest disappointments. Kevin Spacey was channeling too much of Gene Hackman and not making the role his own. I would have liked it had Lex been his more modern corporate tycoon/super genius. You never get a sense that Lex has any real place in Metropolis at all. He doesn't dominate the city...and the real estate schemer thing is just meh. The movie version of Lex is often dismissed by the characters in the film as nothing more than a common thug. He swindles an old woman to inherit her families fortune (I actually think this is one thing Lex would do if required).

For all the flack Smallville gets, it accomplished one thing the films never have; a spot-on portrayal of Lex Luthor. Give Rosenbaum another 10 years to get over Smallville and age a bit, then get him in a Superman film as a proper Lex Luthor. You know it makes sense.

And that was a big part of my problem with the film. It was too half-hearted, stuck between paying homage and doing something new. It lacked a clear identity of its own. I'd rather have seen it commit wholeheartedly to creating a new, fresh take on Superman. That would've been a better tribute to Donner than just copying elements of Donner's films, because it would've instead been following in the footsteps of Donner's approach: reinventing Superman, bringing a fresh, modern take to it.

Click to expand...

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Those elements all came across so strong in my mind that the Donner homages barely register at all in comparison.

They feel like nothing more than just small, respectful nods to me, and I'm always amazed that it's all other fans seem to notice. Maybe when you break it down on paper the comparison is there, but that's certainly not the experience I have when actually watching the movie.

What I *do* like about the outline, and think had great potential, was the conflict of ideology: Superman's lassez-faire philosophy vs. Braniac's hands-on approach. I would have loved to see Braniac's intentions to be good -- rather than purely self-serving -- and watch the conflict between too much meddling and too little intervention play out. That makes for a really compelling character and thematic study. That part of the film I'd like to have seen.

Click to expand...

That's the only interesting thing about Superman, as far as I'm concerned. Here's an individual with essentially god-like powers in a world rife with exactly those things he claims to want to combat--suffering, injustice, etc.--at a massive scale. How much does he intervene? How far can he impose his vision of the world on others? Where does one find the balance between free will and suffering it causes? The central issue of Superman should always be the problem of theodicy; he is epic by his very existence. Instead, the character is mired in cornball Grant Wood shite, lovelorn brooding and chasing down Beagle Boys-level petty crooks. This outline, ironically, sounds like the best take on the character for the cinema I've yet to hear; shame that Singer didn't do this film when he had the chance, instead of the aggressively bad film he ultimately released.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea, but this outline indicates a severe lack of philosophical pay-off. The whole discussion gets thrown under the bus once it's revealed that it's all leading to a computer wiping out the planet.

I think the pay-off would be that come people would finally realize WHY Superman doesn't just become their new God: He doesn't want some sort of spineless cult worshipers who will rely on him for everything and forget their own ability to do good and effect change in the world.

That in the end, he wants it to be for humans to realize that only they will be the ones to choose and achieve their own destinies.

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong; it definitely felt like its own thing, and it was a boring thing. It was just too subdued and languid and lacking in any real interest. I tend to imagine it's because Singer was just doing a fanboy homage, that if he'd really been fired up to create something original, he would've done better. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's simply the wrong person to do Superman. Maybe it would've been languid and solemn and lacking in fun no matter what he did.

But I have to wonder -- could Singer, the man who created such a compelling Magneto, have given us a more interesting Luthor if he hadn't been emulating the Donner movies' lame version of the character, but had instead based it on the modern comics' corporate magnate or come up with his own original archvillain type? Would he have come up with a more satisfying Clark-Lois dynamic if he hadn't seen it as a continuation of their love affair in Superman 2? And would it have been easier to accept the new cast in their roles if the film hadn't been encouraging us to pretend they were the same people previously played by Reeve, Kidder, Hackman, et al.? All those things diminished the film for me. Maybe a Singer Superman film still wouldn't have been very good without them, but they were part of the problem.

Up until the point where Superman realizes that Brainiac then destroys those worlds he helped improve i thought it was a good story but for what reason does Brainiac destroy these worlds?

It absolutely makes no sense other than "it's just evil and evil people do evil and illogical things just because..". Is Brainiac then trying to make himself the dictator of these worlds and they resist or what?
Huge plothole and it would have been potentially ruining the whole movie if it were made.

But the dumbest thing is that Brainiac somehow matures Jason in minutes (can't be longer for Superman to find out what happened after the destruction of the ship). Even if it were hours or days it still is a major, stupid decision just so the producers can avoid Superman beating up a kid (even if it's superpowered and possessed).

I know it's just a summary and some details may have been left out but it could have been a good story if they filled in the holes.

Now however we have one of the best current director/writer teamups doing a new Superman movie and if the Batman movies were any indication we're in for a hell of a ride. I have absolute faith in Nolan and to this date i have really liked every movie of his (though they give me headaches sometimes trying to figure them out.. especially The Prestige and Inception) so them making Superman is one of the best reason to see it next year (can't believe it'll be there in about exactly one year.. i'm right about Christmas '11 as a release date am i?)

Just read the synopsis. I didn't think it was that bad. For a follow-on to SR at least they tried to make the events in the movie have lasting consequences. I'm not sure about a Kryptonite moon. I agree with one of the other posters that that might have an adverse affect on Superman, especially if he flies into space anywhere near it. It might've made more sense to just have the Brainiac ship encounter the floating island and trace the trajectory back to Earth.

I do like the inclusion of Brainiac and I also like the clash in approaches. That would be neat to see. Though Superman IV was horrid regarding production values, a good deal of the story, and even most of the acting, the basic idea I always liked. And this is similar. However I find it unrealistic that the world would just so easily agree with Brainiac or turn against Superman, though it would be neat if there was lingering doubts about Supes based on him leaving after Superman II. But I liked the idea of the cloned bodies.

I've heard something similar on this board and others about Jason's fate if Brainiac was involved. I would be shocked to see if they actually would've killed him off, though I wouldn't have minded tying up that loose end. I wonder how Lois and Clark's relationship was in the film? The synopsis doesn't touch on that, or how Lois would react to Clark killing their son? If Lois became his enemy in a SR III, that might've been an interesting storyline twist, minus the limp acting of Kate Bosworth.

And that was a big part of my problem with the film. It was too half-hearted, stuck between paying homage and doing something new. It lacked a clear identity of its own. I'd rather have seen it commit wholeheartedly to creating a new, fresh take on Superman. That would've been a better tribute to Donner than just copying elements of Donner's films, because it would've instead been following in the footsteps of Donner's approach: reinventing Superman, bringing a fresh, modern take to it.

Click to expand...

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Those elements all came across so strong in my mind that the Donner homages barely register at all in comparison.

They feel like nothing more than just small, respectful nods to me, and I'm always amazed that it's all other fans seem to notice. Maybe when you break it down on paper the comparison is there, but that's certainly not the experience I have when actually watching the movie.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. Superman Returns was much more thoughtful and meditative than Richard Donner's films ever were. They were more action/adventure movies, and Singer's film was decidedly more romantic.

Besides that, as has been mentioned before, the tone and visual style as you say is also radically different. Donner's films are a reflection of the times, very bright and bland and stylistically one-dimensional, but Singer's film had visual depth, with a darker, more complex and ultimately more expansive color platette.

Plus, when I watch Superman Returns it feels like I'm watching a movie that is more deeply about unrequited love, but when I watch Donner's films, as enjoyable and entertaining as they are, I kind of feel like I'm watching any sort of average, standard action/adventure film, admittedly one that is very well-made.

Up until the point where Superman realizes that Brainiac then destroys those worlds he helped improve i thought it was a good story but for what reason does Brainiac destroy these worlds?

It absolutely makes no sense other than "it's just evil and evil people do evil and illogical things just because..". Is Brainiac then trying to make himself the dictator of these worlds and they resist or what?
Huge plothole and it would have been potentially ruining the whole movie if it were made.

Click to expand...

You're reacting to this as though it was the final, comprehensive story of the film. It's not. It's a secondhand summary of a preliminary story outline for a script that was never written. Obviously, if the project had gone forward, the outline would've been refined, more detail would've been worked out, plot holes would've been filled in, etc. Heck, the whole story would probably have changed greatly, since that's how it works in Hollywood. You can never assume that a development-stage outline like this would bear any significant resemblance to the finished film. This was just the seed.

Now however we have one of the best current director/writer teamups doing a new Superman movie and if the Batman movies were any indication we're in for a hell of a ride.

Click to expand...

Personally I think Zack Snyder's a poor choice for Superman. He's too much about style over substance, and his stuff seems to emphasize violence and machismo. His imagery is too artificial, too detached from reality, and that's the wrong direction to go if you want to sell a fantasy character like Superman to a general audience. (Which is why I'm disappointed that Christopher Nolan isn't directing it himself.)

I'm willing to give Zack a chance based on my confidence of the script from the Nolan's and David Goyer. Synder's visual style is not for everyone (I happen to be a fan of his) and I can see why most fans would be hesitant over his directing a "Superman" movie but until I actually see footage I'm going to refrain from criticizing his work.